Two things to know about me:
When I was starting out in politics, I would drive a cab in Chicago for three or four months between campaigns. I did this from 2005-2010.
I hate Uber with the heat of 1,000 suns. The worst sort of big tech monopolist that used massive infusions of venture capital to artificially undercut taxis and other providers until many of them left the market.
Uber currently has about 75% of the ride hailing ridership, an unhealthy monopoly. This allows them to squeeze driver and customers alike. Many progressive cities and states have tried to address this by having drivers considered employees, entitled to a minimum wage and benefits. This has largely been unsuccessful.
In today’s Fair Deal Democrats podcast, I argue that cities should find ways to support - through savvy regulation, public awareness campaigns, etc - alternatives to Uber. I discuss some ideas for revitalizing the taxi industry, making alternatives ride hailing apps like Empower viable, and jitneys.
I didn’t have the time in the podcast for specific ideas for the taxi industry, so I have added my notes below:
Fix the product before marketing it
The core reason Uber won wasn’t price — it was the app experience. Riders loved knowing exactly where their driver was, upfront pricing, cashless payment, and easy rating. Any serious competitive strategy has to match this. Several dispatch platforms, let local operators deploy a comparable app without building one from scratch.
Compete on reliability and trust, not price
Uber’s surge pricing, deactivations, and driver churn create real vulnerability. A local operator can market itself as the dependable option: predictable pricing, drivers who know the city, accountable service. This resonates especially for airport runs, medical transport, and corporate accounts where reliability matters more than getting the cheapest ride in three minutes.
Win institutional contracts
Hotels, hospitals, universities, convention centers, and corporations are high-volume, repeatable business that Uber handles poorly at the B2B level. A local operator can offer dedicated accounts, monthly invoicing, guaranteed availability, and a direct phone contact. This creates revenue that doesn’t depend on winning individual riders one at a time.
Target underserved segments
Uber is weakest in suburban and exurban areas (thin driver supply), with elderly or non-smartphone populations, in medical/non-emergency transport (a regulated and reimbursable market), and for large groups or specialty vehicles. Owning even one of these niches well is more sustainable than trying to beat Uber at its own game in dense urban cores.
Driver retention as a competitive moat
Uber’s model creates high driver turnover. If you treat drivers well — stable income, benefits, predictable schedules, respect — you attract better operators and build a service quality advantage that’s hard to replicate. Happy, experienced drivers are your brand.
Coalition and cooperative models
Individual local taxi companies competing alone against Uber’s national network will struggle. Regional cooperatives or technology-sharing arrangements between local operators can distribute the fixed costs of app development, marketing, and dispatch infrastructure while preserving local ownership.
Regulatory engagement
Local operators have legitimate standing to push for level regulatory playing fields — insurance requirements, background checks, accessibility standards, and airport/venue access rules. This isn’t just rent-seeking; Uber genuinely operates under looser standards in many markets and closing that gap is fair competition.
With thoughtful regulation and support, cities can build a highly profitable alternatives in specific institutional, specialty, and reliability-focused segments while Uber fights over the price-sensitive commodity market.
Reason had a great article about the travails of the Empower app in Washington DC.
Enjoy the podcast.
